thirtythr33 wrote:<suggestions for names of things>
Drives is the winner out of the story aspects so far.
M3 and R3 are probably the best out of the obstacle replacements. R might win out simply to avoid any possible mix-ups between M3 and MoS3.
I'm not sure about the accuracy v. precision thing. I get the technical argument, I'm just not sure if it's the most user-friendly. I looked at your graphic, understood it, moved on to write this.. and now without looking back I've already forgotten which is which. Worth thinking on, though.
I can agree with the notion that Phrase can be fiddly. A Phrase is two tempos. If we went with "Exchange" anyone from TROS will assume it's replacing the word 'tempo,' not the word 'phrase.' Should we be replacing them both? If so, we'll need new terms for both.
Legerdemain is there both because it's technically the right word and because at the time we didn't want Sleight of Hand to be the only skill that was multiple words.
Sword & Buckler is probably going to wind up Cut and Thrust in this draft because we're rearranging some stuff. As of now, Saber and Messer are going to wind up being different emphases of the Cut and Thrust proficiency. Their maneuver spread is basically identical, and even more so in this draft. I can see an argument for renaming sword and shield, but I have no idea what you'd do for it. Arming Sword is too weapon specific (a gladius and scutum would fall under this just as easily, and an Arming Sword could be used with a buckler in a cut and thrust style). Shield Formation could be as easily applicable to Mass Weapons or Spears, and my mental association for War Sword is actually with hand-and-a-half swords, though I couldn't tell you why.
nemedeus wrote:nemedeus wrote:Agamemnon wrote:
Less 'appeasing,' and more 'not intentionally annoying.' Honestly, I don't have any real belief that it would be a problem anyway, but if the thing can be fixed without much trouble, it might as well be. I don't follow the "design decisions" reference though. The name of a thing is a purely aesthetic issue, rather than a design issue. The mechanics don't care what the unit is called.
Dude, literally every point in both Proposal 1 and Proposal 2 looks almost completely like a carbon copy of Burning Wheel. If this is going to be a problem, changing a name won't prevent it.
I notice you didn't say anything in response. I hope i didn't hit a nerve there?
I think I actually missed this when I skimmed through the thread the night before. I've been trying to force myself to do less forum'ing and more drafting since only one of those actually counts as being productive.
As it stands, I'd have to contest the notion. What is actually presented?
- The specific attributes used
- That attributes and skills are separate sets of things
- The numeric range of attributes and skills
- How attribute and skills interact
- How to deal with skills you don't have
To the first - we aren't using the same attribute spread, and I don't think BW has anything approaching "derived attributes" anyway.
To the second - this is the default in most games.
To the third - A 1-10 range in a culture that uses a base 10 counting scale isn't really unique. We rate most things on a 1-10 scale even colloquially. For a die pool system, it's about as many dice as you can comfortably roll, for most people. I don't know if BW caps at 10, but I know TROS did and I think Sorcerer may have as well. Of course, the reason we capped at 10 was because we were already on a 1-5 scale in X+Y. I was just keeping the die pool on the same scale. To get our range values, I just added +1 and then stretched out the top end as that's where we needed the room.
To the fourth - Proposal 1 has attributes form the basis of skills, which is in BW but also in a bunch of different games. Runequest immediately comes to mind. Proposal 2 doesn't have attributes and skills tied
at all, which is far more unusual and notably not how BW does it. The closest one could argue this would be to point at Proposal 2's mix-and-match setup as being similar to FoRKing, but if anything you'd have to argue the present use was a weird hybrid of that idea and the default mechanic of something like VtM. Now that we've actually worked out the details on our end, it will wind up being more expansive and flexible than either. Despite my misgivings, I'm actually quite pleased with how it came out.
And finally, to the fifth - Both are running "use the relevant attribute instead," but this is again hardly unique. TROS does this by default because of how it's skill system is set up, as do a few other games. We're also penalizing them in a different way to Burning Wheel.
The only things either proposal have directly in common with Burning Wheel are the things that are either common to most RPGs in general or dice-pool RPGs in particular.
dysjunct wrote:I like "Requirement" for the exact reasons thirtythree mentions. Maybe the first time it's called out, refer to it as "Success Requirement, or simply Requirement..." It's exactly what it is and abbreviates easily and uniquely into Req1, Req2, etc.
Req (
rehk) has a good mouth-feel to it. I'm not sure if it should be written as R1, r1, Rq1, rq1, Req1, or req1, though.